Re: gpl licensing

[Keith Thompson]

"Alfred M. Szmidt" <ams@gnu.org> writes:
>    >    > You cannot own intangible objects.
>    > 
>    >    If they're objects they're not intangible. Unless you're into
>    >    perversions like OO.
>    > 
>    > I prefer Lisp.
>
>    It's a speech impediment that can be cured. Scheme's more fun.
>
> :-)
>
>    >    In any case, what you say is bollocks. A company is
>    >    intangible, but it can be owned (I happen to own one very,
>    >    very small company :).
>    > 
>    > A company isn't really intangible.  You have equipment, rooms,
>    > and what not, which are not intangible, which you as the director
>    > (or whatever) might own.
>
>    Nope, the company owns equipments and pot plants, but I own half
>    the company (my wife owns the better half :).
>
> In other words, your wife owns half the equipments/plants, you own the
> other.
>
>    Intangibles can be owned.
>
> Not at all.  See above.

No, the company (a legal but intangible entity) owns all the equipment
and plants, and he and his wife each own half of the company.  He
presumably would not be able to sell his half without taking the
existence of the company into account.  If he and his wife each owned
half the equipment and plants *directly*, it would be a different
situation.

Yes, the company is an artificial entity.  So is ownership in general.

It's easy to imagine a society in which nobody could have any
ownership rights in the equipment.  No one person, group, or other
entity would have the legally enforceable right to prevent anyone else
from using the equipment.  (What would happen if someone tried to
assert such a right is another question.)  I'm not saying that such a
hypothetical society wouldn't have its problems, but it's
theoretically possible.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center             <*>  <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this.